Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 29, 2013 4:00am-4:31am PDT

4:00 am
street and i don't know if perhaps with the office of work force and economic development there may be a way to d they need and you know if you have gone to that y, it's substantially under, it's very small. they can use the additional space and so that would be a great use, i think we have had conversations with the owner of the ford star theatre about operating it. i think if the y could operate it, you could serve in a community capacity that way. i have will is spoken to a number of two different real estate commercial real estate brokers who said they had restaurant who would be interested in a space like this. and i agree with commissioner antonini about someone once how can you have a restaurant on the upper floor, no one is going to be able to see it. having a 70
4:01 am
foot high blaze height saying alexandria, it could help to spark a revival of some economic interest in that neighborhood. >> as far as if architecture i rarely comment on the architecture, my first response is it's so ornate inside. it would be great to bring it to the exterior. miguel did you have a comment? >> thank you. just to add what he was saying. about the second meeting, i was able to bring
4:02 am
someone from the ymca for the west coast. they are definitely interested in that. let alone some of the space in the theatre itself. it would be a natural mix and in this instance, the y actually owns the property. they are not renting it. they have owned it for a long time. maybe they can operate both or one and maybe the space as possible housing at some point. >> thank you, commissioner moore? >> it is a great story. i wish it had that little extra caveat what we heard about the mission theatre that an operator would indeed would have stepped forward. this is an exclusively rich theatre. when you see a complicated space like this without having a commit operator, it gets a little
4:03 am
dicey to just optimistically looking into future where other opportunities to get entitlement for the process but it's like the tail wagging the dog. i'm concerned about that process. are you in agreement that the first floor, the retail spaces because of the exposure and the way they are chopping up the big easter egg are difficult for anybody, the interior and unless you are in paris where you have some kind of a grand designer of making use of the drama of the space, it's very hard to find a normal operator in this kind of space. >> i think again we don't have an operator at this point of course, so it's hard to answer that question as to the final design, but this is the kind of
4:04 am
space that should the y be interested in, we do not need the second level of entry and then they could be in a position to use the whole thing on an operator like that, it could actually improve the way this interior is designed. these movie theatres are definitely a challenge because of the volume of space and how balance, how they get seen on the outside because we have these murals above that we don't want to affect. the store fronts run below that. i do agree it is a challenge. >> i appreciate the way the two buildings tie together. i think it would be easily approvable. i would like to see in the conditions that this does not make it just a flipable
4:05 am
project. i believe the quality of adaptive reuse, needs a commitment to the quality architecture on the quality of the parking lot that it's not just an adventure and cheapish down. unfortunately it came to my attention, please correct me if i am wrong that somewhere along the building there was vandalism in the last couple of weeks. i heard that. >> there was some vandalism. someone did break in a few weeks ago. the good things about the vandalism, the front doors were open. there was graffiti sprayed on the interested but not on any of the historic fabric, the bad news was that, there are three small plaques that as you walk
4:06 am
up the grand stair they are about this big and apparently someone chipped those out. one of the solutions to that is we have very good photography of them. they are small and plaster and potentially can be created and we have others with the same finish and it could be matched by a conscious -- conservator. >> the point i'm trying to make to this commission followed an absolutely heartbreaking story from mr. miguel was part of a theatre on hardening. it was so absolutely heart wretching to see an historic resource where at it's time had the qualities similar or comparable to what
4:07 am
you are describing absolutely totally there are no words to describe it, ripped apart and because there is no commitment, but there is indeed a real estate venture on the other end that there wouldn't be restriction put on the maintenance, supervision, day-to-day care of the theatre that is what i believe the commission needs to attach to the approval of this project and in addition to that and i think we are not allowed to do that, i would like to tie the execution of the adjacent build to the same level of care, preferably which we can't do with the same architecture to bring it forward with the same promise by which this community comes out and supports it and has lived with some difficult
4:08 am
conditions. >> following on commissioner's comments i want to check on the checks and balances we might have to ensure that the projects maintain this integrity if the sponsor or if the entitlement is sold. >> i think the only way that staff can do it is to as suggested by commissioner moore is to place a condition in the approval so then that way staff would be able to enforce the intent of what you are trying to do. if it's not written down then staff has no mechanism to do enforcement or to make sure the sponsor maintains the theatre regularly so it doesn't
4:09 am
get run down. >> jeff johnson planning department, because those concerns are raised by the community and others, we held the project to somewhat higher standard to some of the finer scaled details. not contained in your packet are a number of details that we requested and product and included windows, cultured stones and sections and details, roof tile, canopy elements and doors surround and that kind of level of detail to make sure that is memorialized. >> i appreciate that but the element is day-to-day security and the manner that we don't
4:10 am
have to spend later money to imitate a plaque that has been ripped off. i would like this to be a protected resource if it's occupied. that requires an investment and commitment from the owner that is like a real life presence in a project. >> commissioner antonini? >> i would like to make a motion to approve and i would to capture a few things. the first part of my motion is to require strict security on the building until such time the project is completed as designed. obviously there would be security after it's completed too but our biggest fear is what might happen if it was vandalized an things were destroyed before and the second part of the condition would be we would require a new conditional use or had it come
4:11 am
back to us if there were any significant change in the materials described in the architecture to include the tiles in the building as those done in the theatre and residential building. if we can get something to that effect, that would be my motion. >> i second the motion. may i ask one to add to the motion is security and maintenance. >> security and maintenance. yes. >> okay. there has been a motion and a second. if i can have it correct here. to include conditions that would require strict security to
4:12 am
prevent vandalism of the interior and especially attention to the architectural features and the maintenance of the interior and if under any circumstance in the future the architectural design or materials are modified in the future that this project be returned to the planning commission for their consideration? >> yes. on that motion, commissioner antonini, aye, hillis, aye, moore, aye, wu, aye, fong aye, that passes unanimously 5-0. >> could i ask the community to keep us posted on any forthcoming operators if there are? i would greatly appreciate that, thank you. >> next item, please?
4:13 am
>> commissioner, your last item on your calendar items 14 a and b for cases 2012595 d and e roosevelt way. request for discretionary review. this is an abbreviated discretionary review.
4:14 am
>> good afternoon planning commission. you have before you a dr for a project at 165, 167 roosevelt way located in the corona heights neighborhood. it includes a one story vertical addition and north elevation to the building to replace rear stairs and add rear balance -- balcony. a 1200 square foot of
4:15 am
habitable area and 4 feet 6 inches in depth and five foot balcony. the hearing to this project was originally held in december 5th, 2012 while the notice was still pending. requested dr prior to the expiration date. the sponsor is requesting rear yard to the balcony. that hearing is now combined with this dr hearing. such property has a part abutting it. it's one of the adjacent properties to the east of the subject site. the
4:16 am
proposed building would be out of the neighborhood and out to the adjacent property toe east and the proposed building is out of style with the neighborhood. the propose compartment is compatible with the near by and the buildings are separate by rear yards that provide 64 feet of space which is more than enough space typically to provide spaces in the environment. the building lacks architectural interest now and appears larger because of this lack of building articulation. the proposed
4:17 am
addition adds architectural interest to the building with the addition of new materials and scale to the buildings by giving it a variety of different facade. for this reason the commission asked that you do not accept this. that concludes my presentation. >> dr request or? >> thank you. good afternoon commissioners. my name is keith davis. my brother and i own this which is directly east of the applicant's project. our two unit building has been in the family and rented by long-term tenants. i hereby ask
4:18 am
you to deny this. i'm encourage to see that it does not require a variance. i understand there is a variance preventing the balcony. i think the revision to move the east wall of the four story addition third position back to comply with the code setback was due to the overwhelming opposition of the neighbors variance hearing and the recommendation of zoning administrators scott sanchez. we hoped for a decision on the variance but when it didn't come we thought asking for a discretionary review was an option. we requested for a dr before the clock ran out on the application. i didn't think it
4:19 am
would stop him from going ahead with the proceeding. this is all knew to us. the reasons we still oppose the proposition is as follows: it's on a small lot over towering. the shear sides and scale of the proposed building makes it out of character with the property in the neighborhood. the increase in height of the building will block sunlight and create shade to the properties. the additional height will block existing views to properties to the west of the building and finally, the increase of light, noise and activity on the proposed roof tariffs will face
4:20 am
west towards our garden. we ask that you please consider the many negative impacts that it will have on the neighborhood and the individual property owners. and again ask that you deny the permit for the vertical addition. i ask of this point as a point of or and i going to have aortic valve 3 minutes to the balcony issues. those items were called together. you have 5 minutes for both of these items. have two minutes left. >> we oppose this for the following reasons. we believe they do not meat the criteria justifying the proof of variance. my niece will speak to that in more detail. it does not comply with the setback requirements. there is a current non-compliance to the
4:21 am
adjacent property owner. this is not a minor reduction in setback. it should be 15 feet. they are proposed 2 -- 15 within 2 or three feet of our backyard. there is additional lights, noise, activities on these balcony places are not compliant. people are more likely togate balconies -- we
4:22 am
think it's important to maintain these set backs. we respectfully ask that you uphold this and deny the variance. >> i'm going to call what i think are speakers in favor of the dr. i'm going to call right
4:23 am
now speakers in favor of the dr. you will have a chance to speak as a project sponsor. if if you are in favor of the d r you are against the project. >> good evening. just to make it very clear here when this property under current zoning requires a 15-foot setback on the building which would include detection and
4:24 am
balconies, currently there is only 7.5 feet from the property line to this building. it's already in violation by almost eight 1/2 feet over the setback. the building right now is over eight 1/2 feet over the setback line. in that there are already entries to each unit. one through the garage and front doors. they are further encroaching with the stairways. the stairways go up to entry doors and there are windows on the east side of the building not sliding glass doors going
4:25 am
out to party decks. our properties are below this property to the eyes and -- east and there will be noise and into this backyard. follow the law. don't give a variance on top of variance, please. thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> i'm alex shop. i'm a resident. i guess you can a test the passion that we have about this since we are all here for five hours. but, i think my issue is around noise, around how this will change the dynamic of that neighborhood. our neighborhood is in a very old neighborhood, a very well established neighborhood. all
4:26 am
the buildings have that kind of old integrity, and i'm really concerned that as we allow these changes in the amended building structures that that will be this slippery slope that allows another owner to say, well, okay, let us make this building more modern and -- and this is not about a bigger foot print. this is going to be a bigger building. it's on a small corner lot. that concerns me that it really doesn't reflect the philosophy or the attitude or the gestalt of san francisco and i'm just
4:27 am
so adamantly opposed to having this increase in vertical space, increase in the depthness of the back and being able to have these balconies with their views and here we are being in crouched upon and being told that our lives are not important and the complexion of how we see the neighborhood and how we stru neighborhood and how we would like the complex of the neighborhood maintained is pretty much marginalized and i'm very very concerned about that. thank you for your attention. >> good afternoon, commissioners. we purchased 148
4:28 am
buena vista terrace. our house is directly behind block lot 29 which is back behind 167 roosevelt way. we have kept this property to use as our retirement home. i'm here to respectfully ask you to deny the permit of the vertical addition and the variance to the balconies to the east side. i'm also addressing the balconies as well the scope work will reduce our property value by reducing light into you're backyard and it has significant limitations for development and it's been oddly
4:29 am
shaped. i appreciate every homeowner 's desire to improve their home and lifestyle and should be allowed to improve their properties. the proposed improvement will negatively affect my property. in my estimation they have failed to exploit other opportunities to expand the residential space of the property. she has ignored the concerns of neighbors and dismissed our suggestions that she has voluntarily altered with proposals to neighbors concerns are outrageous. while i'm not opposed to her improving her property for her in enjoyment, should not be to the detriment of her neighbors. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good evening. robert walter.
4:30 am
i live in the house that both greg and keith own. i have lived there for over 30 years. i'm the oldest resident on the block. i want to give you a picture of what nadine's house looks like now and it is a huge house. when i come out on my garden level, i'm one level below her garage level. so that when i look up at her house now and see the garage and two livable floors, i'm looking at a third and second floor. her building spans my entire garden into next garden, the next lot. so it is this huge wall of building

12 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on